"Typical Duties"

Started by UWONGO2, March 31, 2015, 07:14:00 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

UWONGO2

I tried submitting this to the knowledge base and through my chain of command, but it's been a couple of weeks without an answer so I thought I would check with the experts here (I did try a couple of searches first):

NHQ added cadet duty positions to the duty positions module in eServices. Our wing commander then briefed the squadron commanders that he'd like to see the module used. This immediately lead to an issue where squadron commanders couldn't place some cadets in certain leadership positions due to their grade.

Off went an email to NHQ who stated that in accordance with CAPR 52-16, eServices is restricting duty positions for cadets to specific grades. This did confuse me because CAPR 52-16 only directs readers to CAPP 52-15 (Cadet Staff Handbook) for "guidance" for assigning cadets to duty positions. The pamphlet itself lists "Typical Duties" but, at least for me, that suggests there are "non-typical" duties as well.

Additionally, NHQ stated that eServices is programmed with wiggle room in that it will allow commanders to assign cadets that are one grade lower than recommended, essentially allowing commanders to (slightly) violate the regulation.

So while I can live with directives handed down from above, I'm having trouble with what "Typical Duties" chart is being used. The chart in CAPP 52-15 shows C/Major and higher as a cadet commander, while the cadet superchart shows C/Capt and higher for cadet commander. I've heard (but not tried) that eServices appears to allow C/1st Lieutenants as cadet commanders, so it seems like it's using the superchart's typical duties listing, yet the regulation references the pamphlet.

I personally am onboard with the idea of linking positions to specific grades and cadet phases, but never considered it a "shall, will, or must" type requirement. Since it apparently is, I'd like to know which "typical duties" chart is the one being used. Does anyone have definitive information on this?

lordmonar

Sorry....but that's another one of those things that NHQ screwed up on.

The idea model of what a cadet squadron should look like....and what they actually do look like are so out of sync that the E-Service Cadet Duty Assignment Model is next to worthless.

Can't help you...Ned how ever.....is the National CP volunteer guy...and he visits...he may be able to shed some light on to this.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Майор Хаткевич

The big one is Earhart for C/CC. Of course that's not a reality in all (most?) Units.

RangerConlin

My assigned C/CC is a C/2nd Lt.  No issues doing it here.  The only thing I had when assigning him was a pop up asking me if I was sure I wanted to assign him even though he didn't meet the recommended grade requirements.

Camas

I've found it useless. Our unit doesn't use it. It's enough to keep track of the senior members using the "duty assignment" e-services module.

Capt Thompson

I was a C/CC as a C/MSgt. The C/CC before me was a C/Capt before leaving for the AF, but the C/CC before him was a C/MSgt as well. Thankfully no eServices back then lol.

What do units do that have senior NCO's in this position? They just don't key them in eServices?
Capt Matt Thompson
Deputy Commander for Cadets, Historian, Public Affairs Officer

Mitchell - 31 OCT 98 (#44670) Earhart - 1 OCT 00 (#11401)

Tim Medeiros

eServices loosened up its restrictions on cadet duty assignments as far back as August, when on a whim I assigned my highest ranking cadet (a C/CMSgt) as Cadet Commander and it was accepted.  The verbiage in the program now says "recommended grade".
TIMOTHY R. MEDEIROS, Lt Col, CAP
Chair, National IT Functional User Group
1577/2811

jeders

As has been stated a couple of times, eServices has been loosened up somewhat and allows for more flexibility. That being said, it's still best to use the recommended grades to a degree. In other words, if your highest ranking cadet is a C/SSgt and you assign him as C/CC, then you are setting him up for failure. Instead, assign him to a grade appropriate position with proper expectations, such as flight sergeant.
If you are confident in you abilities and experience, whether someone else is impressed is irrelevant. - Eclipse

Storm Chaser

+1.  And if your highest ranking cadet is a C/MSgt, then the appropriate assignment for him or her is NOT cadet commander, but flight sergeant if you only have one flight or first sergeant if you have two or more flights.

lordmonar

A cadet Lt. col of a 10 cadet squadron has the same duties and responsibilities as a cadet MSgt commander of a 10 cadet squadron.  So where is the setting up for failure if I call the MSgt a commander instead of flight shy?
PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
A cadet Lt. col of a 10 cadet squadron has the same duties and responsibilities as a cadet MSgt commander of a 10 cadet squadron.  So where is the setting up for failure if I call the MSgt a commander instead of flight shy?


Because if you actually read 52-16, we're supposed to be giving them GRADE APPROPRIATE positions, not a top down structure.


C/MSgt? Flight Sgt/First Sgt.
C/2d Lt? Flight Com.
C/Capt? C/CC


It goes with the phases and training.


If he's the First Sgt now, then he can become the Flight com when the next guy in line is the First Sgt, and when he gets his Earhart, he can be the C/CC. That way you don't get a "C/A1C C/CC" who does...nothing after his "term" because he "already dun it", quality of "dun it" not withstanding.

Storm Chaser

Quote from: lordmonar on April 01, 2015, 02:56:46 PM
A cadet Lt. col of a 10 cadet squadron has the same duties and responsibilities as a cadet MSgt commander of a 10 cadet squadron.  So where is the setting up for failure if I call the MSgt a commander instead of flight shy?

I never said anything about "setting up for failure", only that cadet commander is not the appropriate assignment for a C/NCO. You've said similar things on previous posts regarding command assignments and CAP NCOs. That said, there's a BIG difference between a C/MSgt and a C/Lt Col in terms of training, experience and, more often than not, age and maturity. The number of cadets in a unit is only relevant to the extent covered in the CAP publications addressing cadet duty assignments.

Spam

Here's why:

Given that a set of TASKS for both leadership and management need to be performed in a unit, the assumption that they should all be performed by a cadet, or by ANY cadet regardless of grade, is a mistake. The allocation of both duties and responsibilities needs to be adjusted dynamically based on the progression points of the available cadet leaders through the program. By appointing C/MSGTs as C/CCs and C/TSGTs as CAC reps, we are also putting half trained swimmers into the pool and stepping back to let them sink or swim, usually with the half assed results you'd expect.


Progression point A:
Were a unit to have only a uniform batch of Phase 1 Cadet Airmen, all leadership and management tasks would need to be performed by senior member leadership, from top level normally cadet officer (indirect leader) tasks like setting goals, analysis of trend data and metrics, reporting and planning and so forth, all the way down to normally cadet NCO (direct leader) tasks such as inspections, direct counseling mentoring and instruction, and drill of the flight.

Progression point B:
As the units cadets naturally progress, senior member leadership gradually delegates authority for direct leadership tasks first to Element leaders, then Flight Sergeants, for Phase II cadets per the program.  I've seen great success in making selection an open competition with objective criteria (e.g. first person to promote C/TSGT) for assignment.  However, adult leadership should retain the functions normally performed by Phase III and IV cadet officers, because (a) the ranking cadet NCOs have not progressed that far in their training and (b) we want them to focus on learning to be good NCOs first.  It is equally as inappropriate to select C/NCOs as Cadet Commanders before they are ready as it is to select Airmen and Staff Sergeants for a Cadet Advisory Council, as CAC is (read the references) developmentally intended for Phases III and IV cadet officers, to foster cooperative analysis and planning and reporting, in CAC's instance.

Progression point C:
Once a unit starts producing cadet officers, then as part of the program of record they are prepared to transition from being a direct to an indirect leader. They need to step away from their former tasks, and take up new roles and duties.  JOs (junior officers, or company grade officers in grades O-1 through O-3, LT through Captain) are appropriate to select as Flight Commanders (a billet which, absent any cadet officers, should be left vacant and the tasks performed by senior members until they grow a cadet officer or two). Similarly, a C/MSGT who is still several achievements away from being an officer has no reason to be pushed into a Cadet Commander role, which would be appropriate for an O-4 or higher.  At the very least, and as a minimum, no Phase II cadets should be put into officer billets (Flight Commander/Cadet Commander) or assigned to officer tasks inappropriate for their developmental progress.

One may be asking, who defined "appropriate", of course. The answer is, not me... that is the program of record that we should all be executing to, and by jacking around so extensively with it to push mid grade NCOs into command, we are short circuiting the developmental process and we are devaluing the positions and achievements reserved for cadets who work hard to progress. Here's the program of record below, which should be read carefully.

I debated putting all the verbiage in, vice just the links, but I know a certain percent of our members never bother to open the regs at all so I pasted in hopes they might get this.

V/R,
Spam


CAPR 52-16 19 JUNE 2014 CADET PROGRAM MANAGEMENT, 4-1. Cadet Organization and Staff
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/R052_016_2011_02_BFAB729553AB1.pdf
"a. Design Considerations. There is no standard organizational structure for a cadet staff. Each unit should design a staff structure that is appropriate for its mix of cadets, consistent with the broad principles set forth in CAPP 52-15".

CAPP 52-15 February 2012 CADET STAFF HANDBOOK
http://capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_015_21F7ACED34F45.pdf

1.2 DESIGNING YOUR CADET STAFF
"When selecting cadets to serve on the cadet staff, senior members
should try to tie-together three things: the cadet's leadership skill,
their rank, and their job.
For example, new cadets are learning how to follow and contribute to
the team. They wear an airman's insignia, and therefore should be
assigned a position appropriate for a novice, low-ranking leader, such
as element leader. Cadet master sergeants, on the other hand, know
how to follow and have moved on to learn how to take charge of small
groups and execute plans their superiors have developed. Therefore,
these cadet NCOs should be assigned positions that match their rank
and skill, such as flight sergeant or first sergeant. The "Leadership
Expectations" chart on page 20 illustrates these concepts.

Tailoring the Challenge
This principle of tying leadership skill, rank, and position together is all
about providing a tailor-made leadership challenge for each cadet.
However, this may result in the squadron needing to keep some staff
positions vacant. For example, if the ranking cadet is an airman, their
position still should be limited to element leader because we want to
match them with a job that is appropriate for their leadership skill and
rank – it would be premature to appoint that cadet as cadet commander.
If the ranking cadet is a master sergeant, that cadet could serve as
flight sergeant or first sergeant, but higher positions like flight commander
and cadet commander should remain vacant.

By assigning cadets to positions that match their rank and skill, we
ensure each cadet has a leadership challenge that is appropriate.
Further, by keeping high positions vacant until cadets achieve rank
commensurate with the positions, we give the ranking cadet(s) additional
challenges to strive towards and a reason to pursue promotions.
As the cadets advance in CAP and mature as leaders, they can gradually
be promoted into higher positions on the cadet staff".

See also section 1.4 THE CHANGING ROLE OF SENIOR MEMBERS
"... The level of adult involvement – the degree to which the senior staff
takes a hands-on or hands-off approach – should depend on the maturity
of the cadet staff.

For example, in well-established units that have a number of mature
cadet officers, the cadet staff should be afforded considerable autonomy.
It is the cadet officers who should be setting goals, planning activities,
and making decisions for the unit, under senior supervision. In situations
like this, senior leaders can delegate many leadership functions
to the cadet staff, while still supervising and mentoring the cadets.

In contrast, if the unit is bottom-heavy – perhaps it is brand new or
rebuilding – the senior staff will need to take a more hands-on
approach. In the absence of mature cadet officers, the senior staff
must fulfill the goal-setting, planning, and decision-making functions
until junior cadets acquire some rank, maturity, and leadership skills.
The senior staff may even need to instruct cadets in fundamental subjects
like drill and the wear of the uniform, performing duties normally
assigned to cadet NCOs. Hopefully, cadets will progress quickly and
earn entry-level leadership positions. When that happens, the senior
staff should gradually delegate more authority to the cadets and
enlarge the cadet staff's sense of autonomy. In other words, every time
the cadet staff takes one step forward in the Cadet Program, the senior
staff should take one step back.

The Importance of Cadet Position Descriptions
How much authority should be granted to cadets? What is the ideal
scope of their responsibilities? The answers to these questions are
found in the cadet staff position descriptions".


Which then naturally takes us to 20-1.  Note to Ned and NHQ staff:  the pamphlet needs to be updated to refer to 20-1, OR, 20-1 needs to be revised to be harmonized with the pamphlet, I'd say.

CAPR 20-1 ORGANIZATION OF CIVIL AIR PATROL 29 MAY 2000
http://members.gocivilairpatrol.com/media/cms/r020_001.pdf
"PART IV−CADET POSITION DESCRIPTIONS
Cadet Commander
Commands the cadet squadron and performs duties related to cadet positions. They shall:
Establish plans and procedures to accomplish the policies established by the unit commander.
Coordinate cadet staff activities.
Direct cadet staff officers.
Coordinate with senior staff
Serves as liaison between senior and cadet staff.
Ensure compliance with CAP directives.
Make personnel assignment recommendations.
Monitor cadet staff compliance with Cadet Protection policies.
The cadet commander should be familiar with CAP directives as listed in CAPP 52-14.

[other cadet staff PDs here...]

Cadet Flight Commander
Directs and supervises the members of a cadet flight to include:
Leadership of flight in squadron activities.
Leadership laboratory to include proper wear of CAP uniform, military courtesy and discipline, drill, ceremonies and formations.
Advisor to flight members.
Related duties as required.
The cadet flight commander should be familiar with CAP directives as listed in CAPP 52-14.

Cadet Flight Sergeant
Assists the cadet flight commander in the performance of his/her duties, to include:
Inspections.
Instructions in military courtesy and drill.
Maintenance of discipline.
Flight administration and personnel matters.
Flight commander (acting).
Related duties as required.
The cadet flight sergeant should be familiar with CAP directives as listed in CAPP 52-14.

Cadet Squad Leader
Responsible for the supervision and training of the cadet squad, to include:
Satisfactory performance during formations and ceremonies.
Military bearing.
Morale.
The cadet squad leaders should be familiar with CAP directives as listed in CAPP 52-14.

[another note to NHQ/CP staff... the 2000 revision to 20-1 failed again to fix the obsolete Squad Leader reference, which I find touching since it was the first leadership job I ever had in life, but it should of course be "Cadet Element Leader".




Spam

I know that last was too long, and CAC is a peripheral but related topic, but here's the accompanying reference:

V/R,
Spam



CAPR 52-16, Ch. 3 (CAC) calls out
CAPP 52-19 CAC Guide 2 October 2003
http://www.capmembers.com/media/cms/P052_019_1584425C1735C.pdf

P. 19 Part V SENIOR MEMBER LEADERSHIP
"Unit commanders select qualified cadet officers for CAC service.
An appointment to the council may be used to reward outstanding
cadet officers. It recognizes they have progressed as leaders
and are capable of applying their indirect leadership skills to the
challenges encountered at a higher echelon.

[...] Why is important to appoint a cadet officer as a CAC
representative, versus a Phase I or II cadet? Having completed a
curriculum emphasizing followership and small group leadership,
cadet officers are ready to lead indirectly and tackle problems that
are long-term in nature. Their length of CAP service also enables
them to view cadet-related issues against that experience; CAP is
not still new to them. It is for these reasons that CAPR 52-16
suggests that commanders appoint only cadet officers to the CAC.
(For full details about eligibility requirements, see CAPR 52-16,
Chapter 3.)".

Ned

It's nice to know that people read what we write for them.


But remember that CP doctrine evolves over time.  We all need to go back and re-read our materials from time to time.  We already have a list of incremental changes to be included in the next revision of each of the 52-series pubs.

Ned Lee
National Cadet Program Manager

Spam

Ned, thanks for the response. To address the OP's point, is there a harmonization in the works re: the CAPP 52-15 and other references to required grades for cadet commander, et al?

I've interpreted the CAC appointment guidance (with my Wing/CC's approval) to seat C/CMSGTs who are on the verge of their Mitchell award, with the understanding that they're in a Phase III billet. Some times that's actually helped guys in our units who are 'stuck' as a C/SNCO, and don't want to stop 'working for a living' to be a JO.

Also, will these changes be published in the Proving Grounds for comments? That was very helpful.

Cheers,
Spam

UWONGO2

Sorry for the late response, I don't visit here often.

I'm still a bit confused by NHQ's stance. First they told me following the "typical duties" are backed by CAPR 52-16 as being required, but then admitted they were intentionally allowing squadrons to break the regulation by one grade level, only to apparently change their minds and allow squadrons to completely ignore the requirements all together (albeit with a warning). At least that makes the inconsistencies between the cadet staff handbook and the cadet superchart less impactful.

It's challenging enough to adhere to every regulation, but when they're a moving target it's pretty much impossible. It's almost as if I would have been better off not asking NHQ for guidance because then I wouldn't know the goalposts have been moving.

lordmonar

The issues is the usefulness of the tools E-Services provides.

The top cadet in charge of all the rest of the cadets (no matter what his rank) is called what?

Sure the C/SrA is only a C/SrA...but if you wanted to use EServices to manage your chain of command....there is no way to show that C/SrA Newkid is in fact the "commander" for purposes of being the top point of contact for the cadet program.

PATRICK M. HARRIS, SMSgt, CAP

Tim Day

I think the e-services structure is helpful. A C/A1C assigned as a squadron commander is assigned to a duty position that is out of synch with his syllabus.

The C/A1C who is the senior cadet of a 5 cadet squadron should be an element leader and should perform duties at that level, while everything above that level is handled by senior members, so that his book- and practical-training are coordinated.

A C/Capt should be expected to perform the duties of a cadet commander, which are different than that of an element leader. An element leader doesn't really need to think much more longer-term than the current meeting, while I would expect the cadet commander to be planning the next six-twelve months, for example. In the C/A1C-led element I would be writing the yearly schedule and the C/A1C should be submitting an accurate attendance roster and training his element. In the C/Capt-led squadron I would be expecting the C/CC to be submitting a draft yearly schedule for my approval and ensuring his staff submits an attendance roster and trains their flights. A C/Lt Col C/CC should be able to submit a yearly schedule that requires very little senior member finalizing.

 
Tim Day
Lt Col CAP
Prince William Composite Squadron Commander

Майор Хаткевич

Quote from: Tim Day on April 13, 2015, 06:57:18 PM
I think the e-services structure is helpful. A C/A1C assigned as a squadron commander is assigned to a duty position that is out of synch with his syllabus.

The C/A1C who is the senior cadet of a 5 cadet squadron should be an element leader and should perform duties at that level, while everything above that level is handled by senior members, so that his book- and practical-training are coordinated.

A C/Capt should be expected to perform the duties of a cadet commander, which are different than that of an element leader. An element leader doesn't really need to think much more longer-term than the current meeting, while I would expect the cadet commander to be planning the next six-twelve months, for example. In the C/A1C-led element I would be writing the yearly schedule and the C/A1C should be submitting an accurate attendance roster and training his element. In the C/Capt-led squadron I would be expecting the C/CC to be submitting a draft yearly schedule for my approval and ensuring his staff submits an attendance roster and trains their flights. A C/Lt Col C/CC should be able to submit a yearly schedule that requires very little senior member finalizing.




This.


Cadets take one step forward, Senior one step back. The best written line in the cadet staff handbook.

Eaker Guy

Spam,

I do agree that when you assign a cadet a position that he/she is not ready for, it is detrimental to the cadet and the squadron. However, everyone promotes at a different pace. A C/CMSgt may very well have better leadership skills than a C/1st Lt, but would this sergeant get passed over for a flight commander position? I've see cadets put service to the squadron above their own advancement, and I certainly would not pass this sergeant over for flight commander. There is a lot of talk about grade being a fair representative of leadership skill. Maybe it's just me, but I've seen way to many officers with the competency of lower level sergeants. I think we cheat the cadets when we base their eligibility for a duty position completely on grade.

As a cadet, I'm still learning. I would appreciate any thoughts you all may have on what I've just said.

C/Maj Kiss

Spam

Well, since you ask directly,


I don't believe the program goals are served well by a slavish adherence to grade guidelines, and I do believe that the spirit of the program of record is to use them AS guidelines, not rules to live or die by. Accordingly, by way of example, when I was recently the Director of Cadet Programs for my Wing, I did recommend that the Wing/CC "seat" a few unit CAC reps who were C/CMSGTs, with the understanding that they had better continue to advance their education and training and promote rapidly.


I did recommend denial of CAC membership to a couple of C/SSGTs and TSGTs, though, because we believed that they (however outstanding) would best be served by continued seasoning as direct leader NCOs (Phase II) before participating in CAC, a Phase III cadet officer indirect leadership/management function. I was supported in this by my Wing/CC (former C/LTC).


Now that I'm back as a Squadron Commander, I am about to hold the (regularly scheduled, six month routine) Cadet Commander rotation, with a C/Captain rotating out, and his C/Deputy Commander (a C/1LT) rotating in, with the understanding that the LT will make his Earhart ASAP. I've just conducted a selection board for the next Cadet Deputy Commander (a C/2LT about to make C/1LT), who will serve his six months OJT learning command as the second seat, already selected to assume cadet command in turn this December, by which time he knows my expectation that he will be a C/Captain, minimum. If he isn't, well... there are options in my tool kit for that eventuality.


Am I "slipping" by not mandating that all cadet officers be C/Captains minimum to be appointed Cadet Commander?  I don't think so, because, from a holistic approach, they've been screened already for good school performance, for ability and activity, and quite frankly all of them are GTM qualified and experienced (the outgoing C/CC is a rated GTL, going to NESA as staff next month, and both he and his replacement wear Sr. GTM badges).  Some of their predecessors have qualified (as junior officer cadets) not just as GTLs but also as MS/MOs.  I correspondingly view most junior cadet officers in this unit as equivalent in achievement to many (nonrated) cadet field grades in other units.  Yet, Command is not an NCO function, nor is it even a junior officer function per the program of record (note: I'm not opening a cross reference here to the ongoing adult NCO/Officer debate, which I don't find that useful).


So no, I don't base selection completely on grade. Quite the contrary, in fact.  Yet, those guidelines in the Super Chart and the associated cadet staff handbook guidelines are the distilled wisdom and experience of many decades of trial and error in CAP cadet training, to ensure that cadets get the opportunity to master the spectrum of leadership and management techniques in a systematic and organized fashion and not as some horrible ad hoc spasm of uncoordinated poor training. I would not lightly deviate from them to the extent of routinely putting a cadet NCO in a flight commander slot, or putting a C/2LT into a cadet commander slot. In those instances I have always reduced and flattened the unit Table of Organization, appointing the ranking C/NCO as NCOIC, and having adult officers step in to provide all indirect leadership.  All that has been codified as discussed in this thread within the past ten years or so, to my satisfaction.


I personally think we cheat cadets when we promote them on the minimum timeline without consideration for the (as I put it) holistic elements of how personal growth and maturity and collateral training have or have not prepared that cadet for their next promotion, or assignment. We end up with grade-inflated paper tigers who have rank yet lack seasoning and the leavening effect of experience (and I say that from the perspective of a former fast burner cadet/young SM who promoted Lt Col by age 29 during my second unit command... now nearly twenty years ago).


Does this make any sense?


V/R,
Spam


Eaker Guy

Spam.

What you say does make sense. In my squadron, the cadet officers rarely ever promote every 2 months, and the ones the do end up worse for it. The CAC situation that you mentioned is a very good example of what it is like at my squadron. I have a couple C/2d Lts who have the leadership competency of captains, but don't have the grade yet. I actually appointed a C/2d Lt as my cadet deputy commander with the understanding that she will promote as fast as possible to around C/Capt or so, because that's where I feel her leadership skills are at right now. I completely understand the concept of grade inflation, as this has happened I the past month or two. One our officers literally promoted every two months to C/Capt, and he was up for the cadet deputy commander slot. I passed him over because even though his shoulder boards said he was ready, he still has lot of work to do. I assigned him a temporary position while he gets some more leadership experience, but the moral is this. Unless properly used, grade and other contingent rewards are useless if they are randomly thrown at cadets, and current minimum promotion requirements are very deceiving.

Incidentally, why do you rotate your cadet commander every six months? Seems kind of early to me.

You're thoughts?

C/Man Kiss

Spam

I first need to clarify an earlier point of mine: when I referred to considering my ES-rated cadets "equivalent in achievement", I meant in terms of effort and all around accomplishment - "achievement" small a, not "Achievement" as in milestone awards. I do the same with those cadets not really into the (optional) ES element, but who for example earn their solo wings or even private pilot wings for example.  Again, the whole-cadet approach is what I'd advocate.

Next, and I'll try to put this politely, selection and promotion authority resides in the unit commander, per 20-1, not in Cadet Commanders (or in Leadership Officers, etc.).  As such, if you are currently a Cadet Commander, you still do not per the regs have authority to "pass over" anyone, select anyone, or relieve anyone; you should be preparing a well thought out staff plan, submitting it to your Squadron Commander for his/her approval, modification, or rejection as he/she sees fit. It is his responsibility, and it insulates you from any accusations by fellow cadets. (If I've mistaken your status as a cadet and C/CC, my apologies).

Finally, on our use of a six month term:  the guidelines suggest six minimum, which I augment by picking the selectee a further six months ahead, and having him get on the job training (OJT) as the incumbents deputy for six, for a total of a full years experience as both Cadet Commander and Deputy in his boss' absence. It tends to cut down on the wasted time as a new cadet commander with zero in line experience fumbles around trying to learn the ropes, and maximizes both his efficiency to the unit and his experience as a learner.

V/R
Spam






Eaker Guy

Spam,

I understand what you meant by "achievement." My squadron uses the same system with honor guard participation and experience. When compiling my staff plan, I used time in service, grade, leadership skill and potential, as well as honor guard experience.

As for "passing over" cadets, both the previous DCC and the current DCC give me great leeway when picking cadet staff, which I appreciate. Of course, the DCC has to approve my staff, but for the most part, the cadet staff in place is the cadet staff I picked. I am very familiar with CAPR 20-1. I know what it says with regards to authority. Here's how the process goes(at my squadron). 1) Myself and the DCC evaluate potential staff and put together a list of suggestions. 2) My DCC usually approves it. 3) If there is a conflict, like the one I mentioned, myself and the DCC discuss it. We reach an amicable solution. I very well realize that I have very little, if any, authority on which staff to pick. At the same time, I do have to give a list of suggestions, and "passing over" a cadet is part of that list of suggestions. In no way am I saying to this cadet "No, you can't have this position because I say so." It's more like "No, you can't have this position because myself and the DCC say so." The DCCs rely a lot upon my opinion of the staff, and when I am and wrong, they have done a terrific job of turning it into a growing experience for me, rather than just smacking down my suggestion "because I say so." You have not mistaken my position as a cadet and a C/CC. I probably shoot my mouth off  like a cadet, don't I?

As for the six month term, I see your point. However, my opinion of the role is slightly different. This may have to do with the fact that I'm sixteen years old and a C/Maj. I don't know. Anyways, I believe that the best person for the job should hold the position. That's it. A year term sounds pretty good to me, and if I'm still the right person for the job after that term, I go another couple of months. Cadet commander is not a position that should be held lightly, nor a position that I believe should be swapped out every six months. You never know what kind of cadet you have next in line, and the cadet next in line may not always be the right choice for cadet commander. When you have a year's stability, in my humble opinion, the squadron runs much more efficiently. The previous cadet commander was in for two years and no one complained(except me, because I was his deputy during that period ;) Just joking. I really liked serving under him. Cadets can get high level leadership experience and training without serving as cadet commander. I do like your method of switching out deputies. It gives high level cadets leadership experience without putting the burden of running the squadron completely on his/her back.

Thanks for your input,

C/Maj Kiss

Spam

You bet.

Another reason for why 6 + 6 (C/CD - deputy - then C/CC) is the number of cadet officers we have these days (I have six or seven on hand). I would extend it, if we had a gap in the program due to a lack of NCOs progressing through their Mitchell and onwards.  The selection process tries to balance awarding leadership opportunity to every cadet with what is best for the unit and with what slots are available in the time frame for cadets as they "age out" and graduate. I had one cadet officer shuttle between the XO job, then a flight commander (again) then finally the C/CD before taking command, because she was still a sophomore, and we had three upper classmen to offer the experience first. By the time she took command, she was well prepared, had her stuff screwed down tight and did an outstanding job. It did reward her patience.

Two years, I would counter, could have a suppressive effect on the motivation of subordinates to progress in the program, as they would see no "room at the top", with an apparent glass ceiling in effect. However, that might be good if you had only one cadet officer and all the rest were cadet recruits, who would take two years to grow into cadet officers.

I know a few cadet units which are fairly broken, not having had any Mitchell cadets in decades (but which continue to appoint Cadet Staff Sergeants as "Cadet Commanders", which effectively rewards the lack of accomplishment in my view). Not sure if they've understood the fundamentals of how to execute the program there.

Cheers,
Spam